Bournemouth had three points after six games. Eighteenth. But the Guardian gave them 8.4. Expected points.
In 1980, we expected points too. We called them hopes. They appeared in no newspaper.
I read this at the friterie (chip shop) on Monday, with my weekly. Bournemouth lost 5-1 at Chelsea. Chelsea scored five goals from 1.1 xG. Bournemouth scored one from 1.38. The model therefore estimates that Bournemouth deserved better. The scoreboard was not consulted.
I’m not criticising. I’m comparing. In my day, a 5-1 was a 5-1. We went home on the tram. Nobody calculated what we should have lost.
The sequel deserves credit. Six wins in a row, Milan included. Sixteen goals from 16.4 xG. Not a single goal conceded since Jordan Henderson’s free kick. Eighth place. In the expected points table, fourth, with 15.4. Only Arsenal, Manchester City and Nottingham Forest do better. The two tables have moved closer. They still don’t match. Four places apart. Football and computers keep negotiating. I haven’t made up my mind.
Marco Rose told the Guardian: “It’s about results at this level.” Now there is a serious man. He added that, performance-wise, he sees “a lot of good things”. Less serious. But he was right, which annoys me.
Silly question, but in 1980, how did you know you deserved better?
You knew. You said so at the café. And the next day you had forgotten.
Note that I’m not against progress. I’m against this progress. I cut out the real table and slipped it into my weekly. The other one stayed on the table, with the chips. Well. It’s the times.
It’s true, we checked: The Guardian.
